How many fps? (poll)

[EMAN]

I prefer around 60fps - 70fps for typical gameplay

 

[BFG10K]

Need or want?

I need at least 60 FPS average as the bare minimum.
I want 120 FPS or higher because there's a noticeable difference in smoothness.

 

[CStroman]

You spelled poll wrong. Everyone needs at least 60.

 

[MilkPowderR]

<< Need or want?

I need at least 60 FPS average as the bare minimum.
I want 120 FPS or higher because there's a noticeable difference in smoothness. >>



Exactly...

Also having such high FPS like 120+ will not make the game slow down when the intensity of game i.e. Q3A, UT, etc goes to its max. With low average FPS, when u get to the intensity level, it'll run like $hit.

For me, none of those options. My requirement is 150- 300 FPS.

 

[BFG10K]

Also having such high FPS like 120+ will not make the game slow down when the intensity of game i.e. Q3A, UT, etc goes to its max. With low average FPS, when u get to the intensity level, it'll run like $hit.

Thankyou - that's exactly what I was trying to explain to EMAN.

For me, none of those options. My requirement is 150- 300 FPS.

Hehehe. That's pretty hardcore dude. Good stuff.

 

[MilkPowderR]

thankx..

 

[Ronin]

There are certain things in Quake 3 that with lower frame rates you simply cannot do....frame rate is god in Quake 3, which is why you see the professional players running a stripped version of Quake 3, meaning everything is completely toned down.

 

[rogue1979]

I play mostly flight sims and driving games, 40-60fps is fine for me. I play occasional Unreal and usually get about 50fps at 1024 x 768 x32 4X FSAA, it looks fantastic and still plays smoothly. I don't play Quake III, so I don't really understand why some people need 100+ fps.

Edit: guess I need to check more carefully. Just played a few rounds of Unreal Gold at 1024 x 768 x 32 4X FSAA average fps 78!

 

[merlocka]

I want the game to NEVER be displaying frames at a rate slower than 60fps.

I believe that games will frequently drop to more than half of their timedemo average. Therefore, my preference would be to have a timedemo average of 120fps or higher.

For RA3 (which I play online quite a bit), I want a MIN of 100fps. That means I would want a timedemo average of 200fps in Quake3.

For this reason do I (and others) claim that they can tell the difference between "60 and 120 fps"... cause if my timedemo average is 60fps, well, there are times which I will be in a slideshow at <30fps. If it's 120, then it should be OK. Unless it's a Q3 engine, but that's a whole different story.

 

[t4t3r]

i really only need about 70-90 fps, which i voted for. but i do have a g3 ti200, so i get at least 130-150 fps on all games so it doesn't really matter.



t4t3r

 

[EMAN]

t4t3r even 1600x1200 or with FSAA and Aniso.?

 

[cmaMath13]

I personally like 50-70fps. If I can get more, without losing visual quality, then fantastic! I mean the higher the better, but 50-70 is perfectly fine with me.

 

[Insidious]

Kinda spoiled here, would cry if I ever saw less than 70.

how much do I WANT? I am not convinced there is a point that can be reached where
increased ability to run software (faster) is not a benefit to game performance....

Gimme More!

 

[EglsFly]

I like to see 60fps or better average.
Gives you some room for when the fps takes a hit during intense action.

 

[Spike]

I am laughing at those who think they can see a difference between like 70fps and 120fps. AS you may know, the actualy FPS that you can see depends on your monitor refresh rate. If the refresh rate is 85hz, then you can see a MAX of 85fps, any more means that you have a good card, but you still cannot visually see a difference. I personally like anything above 30fps, but I am used to getting much higher (I have a Radeon 8500) About 45fps seems to be the sweet spot in terms of acceptable preformance according to most gamers I know, more is always better, but 45 is a good spot to start at

 

[DonIsHere]

I'm getting 60 fps when playing CS at 1280x960 using OpenGL with a Visiontek GF3Ti200. Is 60 normal for this set up? How can I bump it up?

thanks,
don

 

[merlocka]

I am laughing at those who think they can see a difference between like 70fps and 120fps

I always feel compelled to respond to these

Don't forget to clarify between average framerate, instantanious framerate, and minimum framerate.

If you are talking about a timedemo average, then I would be willing to bet that in actual gameplay many people can tell the difference between a system averaging 70fps and a system averaging 120fps.

This is because minimums can be half of the timedemo average, and even lower in some cases. (Support fire explosions in Return to Castle Wolf multiplayer are a good example). So using 1/2 math, a 70fps timedemo could have minimums of 35fps where 120fps minimums might be higher. It also depends on the CPU and other factors.

As far as instantanious FPS, I agree that most people couldn't tell the difference between 70fps and 120fps. In some games, where input and controls are affected by framerate, I state that I can *tell* the difference between the two. I don't know if it's a visual thing or a "feel" thing but I can definatly, 100%,no BS, I'm-not-trying-to-sell-you-a-video-card, tell the difference in Quake engine games.

Many people who play the game online claim the same thing, and there has been documented discussions proving that framerate changes the physics of the Quake engine games.

Now, if a game *always* ran at 70fps... or 120fps... well, where can I buy that video card?

I think there is a misunderstanding between the people that talk framerates. When I say that I want 400fps or 200 or whatever, it's simply because I want my minimum framerate to NEVER be below the point where I can detect "choppy-ness". Rasing the timedemo average has been the only easy method to raise minimum frame rates.

Last point... this has nothing to do with which video card 0WN3RZ and which video card is suck. I like them all cause the more there are the lower prices get and the higher quality us tweakers end up with.